scope of the legislation. i support what supervisor kim is proposing, but we must have a broad peace of legislation addressing what happens in the mirror -- mayor's race, the sheriff's race, and any others. i will support this, assuming there will be changes were needed. i believe the mayor pay for race is one of them. -- mayor's race is one of them. supervisor chu: i want to think supervisor -- thank supervisor cohen for your comments. i think it is spot on. this issue of us not having a process or not a complete one -- to be honest, the process we went through to have this initial proposal was a public

process. it initiated from the ethics commission. the ethics commissioners voted on it. it came to our board. it was vetted to our process and had public comment period to behave as though this was not a process that was complete or thoreau is inaccurate. i want to make that point. about process -- even if we voted for this, that does not prevent another public process to figure out how to improve public financing. using process as an excuse to not deal with an impending litigation risk is irresponsible and inaccurate. that is the comment i would like to make. president chiu: supervisor cohen, are you still on the roster? supervisor cohen: i am back on their roster. it is going to be a long night.

this is only item 11. in the interest of transparency, when we cast our vote -- pay attention to some quick math. who is up for reelection? where do they vote? do not get me wrong. public financing should be revisited. the point i do not think i made earlier -- supervisor kim is interested in assuring the discussion around public financing. it is a very important. i agree with supervisor farrell about being equitable in which offices we consider, if we are going to offer public financing. an equal playing field should be equal for everyone, not just supervisor races. i am not sure which races are up for reelection. actually, i do.

but i do not want to call up my colleagues. trust me when i tell you that those who are in favor will be voting with supervisor kim on her ordinance. i am asking you to be mindful of that when it comes time for elections, like supervisor elsbernd said, being self interested. i think it is deplorable. the issue is we are out of compliance. we as san franciscans, the city and county are not following the law. we need to cast a vote so we can follow the law like other jurisdictions are doing across the country, like supervisor chu said, and then we can have a conversation about public financing. it is critical that those who are not connected and do not have family money can run for office as well. that is the true spirit of

public financing. supervisor weiner: i want to disagree with a couple of the comments that have been made. with some of my colleagues i will be voting with today, i disagree with the viewpoints made. it is worth -- we should be looking at our public financing statute to see how it can be improved. the fact is, the board of supervisors -- we are the ones who ultimately have to legislate it. if that means raising a cap or doing whatever we have to do, it is our responsibility to look at that legislation. even though people will call us self interested -- part of being a supervisor is you get called every name in the book, with no basis. we have a responsibility to take a look at the ordinance from time to time and see if it needs to be updated, if the cap needs

to be changed. i am comfortable doing that. i think supervisor -- thank supervisor kim for raising that issue, which is worthy of discussion. what supervisor campos said made me nervous. i appreciate wanting to broaden the discussion and look at every aspect of the public financing ordinance -- supervisor, mayor -- that make sense as a global approach. it also makes it a more complicated, long process. we have what is apparently an unconstitutional provision. the longer we let this lender, the more litigation and money risk we have. the more i am hearing, the more convinced i am that we need to take action today, fix what we need to fix, and then move

forward with a good process to update our ordinance. supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to respond to comments about the process. it is true that we went through the regular public process for vetting any legislation here in san francisco, but you can do what is the normal course of public hearings, or you can do intentional outreach on legislation. that is what i am imagining. i know that is not the top priority of every office, to do outreach to advocates and folks that originally defined legislation, but that was not foreign to our office, and that is why we are moving forward with a hearing process that would engage all the folks we reached out to. but i do want to acknowledge this did go through a public process, and what we did at minimum. i am more than happy to talk to the ethics about other city

races in san francisco. some of our offices, like school board, are also state offices. i believe they are under different legal boundaries. if my colleagues would like to look at other races, like the sheriff and the dna -- the da, i am happy to look at that and have an overall discussion. i think raising the ceiling would have happened anyway, without us having to legislate it at the time. unfortunately, the supreme court ruling made the trigger unconstitutional -- not the amount, but the trigger. we have to move forward with this now, coupled with removing the trigger portion, which is unconstitutional, to protect the intent of our public financing law, which is to bring on members of our community who felt they did not have the

capital to win office in san francisco. i appreciate the comments about services for the homeless, seniors, and the poor, but it is grass-roots candidates who them advocate against cuts for the homeless, the poor, and working families. i do think public finance is integral in the whole process. supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor kim is correct. the folks that benefit or could potentially benefit from public financing are the ones that could advocate on behalf of those that need the most advocating. but, again, we are talking about a simple constitutional

issue. we are out of compliance. public financing. two separate issues that should not become an old or brought together. we need to vote -- that should not be combing gold -- be comingled or brought together. we need to vote and come into compliance, and then talk about a public financing structure. today, i hope i have articulated -- maybe i have not. but i want to make sure we drive home the point it is not to coaming goal -- it is not to mingle two separate issues. one is not necessary to the other. our counsil has advised us.

supervisors kim, weiner, campos, farrell, chiu, and elsbernd are graduates from law school. six attorneys. president chiu: do not forget eric. supervisor cohen: supervisor mar is an attorney. you would think they would understand the importance of the supreme court. i am just a graduate with a policy major. i think we have some overachievers, people with policy majors and law school. it is kind of sad we have all these folks with a legal education -- from harvard. i do not know where eric went.

they are questioning the united supreme -- the united states supreme court on what? and theological -- an ideological principle that has nothing to do with compliance and can be debated by the public in a transparent process. supervisor kim: my legislation would comply with a supreme court ruling. supervisor avalos: my mother taught me that if i had nothing nice to say, i should not say anything nice at all, so i will ask for 10 seconds of silence right now. president chiu: i want to bring all of this together. hopefully, i am the last person to speak on this topic. first of all, i do support, as i think we all do, fixing the

provisions in our public financing system that the arizona case showed to have legal issues. because of that, as i indicated last week, i support supervisor farrell's legislation, and the aspects of supervisor kim's legislation that do the same thing. i think all 11 of us want to address the constitutionality. in order to minimize the legal and budget exposure, we should do this as soon as possible. that is why i am prepared to vote on that today. that said, and support efforts to amend public financing rules to adjust to the new reality. i look forward to the work the ethics commission will do. hopefully, in a few weeks, we will have another version we can consider, based on what happens

today. it is important for the public to know i think every member of this board does support addressing the constitutionality issues that were raised. regardless of the outcome of this boat, that should be clear. whether we resolve that today or in a couple of weeks, i believe that will get resolved. i want to and with that. are there any further comments? supervisor cohen: no comment. president chiu: unless there are other motions, could we take a roll-call vote on the ordinance as proposed? supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: ho. -- no. president chiu: aye.

supervisor chu: aye. president chiu: given that this ordinance would have required eight votes, the ordinance fails. supervisor kim will be introducing her ordinance, which includes many aspects of what supervisor farrell proposed today, as well as other changes to the public financing system that the ethics commission will be reviewing in a few weeks. let us move to the next item, item 12. >> ordinance authorizing settlement of lawsuits involving mitchell engineering, and authorizing bonds and appropriation of funds not to exceed $15.75 million. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye.

supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: items 13 through 15. >> resolutions authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute various amendments to increase engineering project design services in amounts not to exceed $14 million, up $15 million, and $16.50 million. president chiu: without objection. >> 16 and 17 authorize the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendments to increase the new tunnel construction management services agreement, not to

exceed $17.50 million and $34 million. president chiu: same house, col. -- same house, same call. >> 19 authorizes designated officers -- 18 and 19 authorized officers and employees of the city to examine sales and transactions and use tax records. president chiu: this item is adopted. >> item 20 authorizes the department of public health and the purchaser to contract with the community health authority to provide payment services for the healthy san francisco program. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 21 authorizes the

department of public health to except and expand a grant to fund -- i accept and expand a grant to find a health services through august 31, 2012. president chiu: this item is adopted. >> item 22, making findings under the california environmental quality act, approving a new market tax credit agreement with the community development corporation in connection with the new sf jazz building. supervisor mirkarimi: i would be more than happy to defer to supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i want to introduce an item amending item 22, thanks to our budget adviser, harvey rose, who did a

report on this item. we agree with his amendments and are offering them to the board. president chiu: is there a second to that amendment? seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. any discussion? without objection, those amendments are made. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to note that in the budget committee i pointed out that this is a very important, i think, addition to this part of our city. it rests in district 6, but borders district 5. it is the building of sf jazz, which i think was very important that it build a relationship with the fillmore jazz corridor and businesses, and the academic

interest, and trying to resuscitate that corridor. if that had not been the case, that this institution that is proposed to go on franklin street be more vigorous in the establishing of the relationships with those in the fillmore area -- people should be reminded, if they have forgotten, that west of mississippi, san francisco was the jazz harlem in the united states. that is something i do not think we should undermine, and should capitalize as much as we can. this addition to this neighborhood helps do that, as long as it is well done. i put on pause the community benefits agreement, which i thought was insufficient for this particular building. i have asked both redevelopment and the architect to this proposal to come back with a

better community benefits agreement. if i could through the president bring up redevelopment to speak on this? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the deputy executive director of the san francisco redevelopment agency. i am also chief operating officer of the san francisco community investment fund. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to say thank you, because it was just last wednesday we asked for a quick turnaround in helping us revise and upgrade the agreement presented to us. i think some improvement has been made. i appreciate that. and i want to thank my office for helping take part in that negotiation. and i think supervisor came for her support. -- thank supervisor kim for her support. in terms of what is today, we

realize the agreement must be solidified by october 11. what is attached is a community benefits agreement. so this is the proper time to move the whole enchilada. i ask one zip code to be added. i ask that you also add 117. the rest comports with our interest, i think, in trying to at least take care, for those in the film more western addition, who are struggling to bring back attention in a jazz historical way -- i believe this institution can add to that. >> i also want to thank supervisor chu, who advised that they and service if they do not comply in the community benefits. we were able to negotiate that

in this process. supervisor mirkarimi: that is a good point. i will not go into all the details, but it has been impressive. >> thank you very much. supervisor chu: i just wanted to make a comment about why this item came out of committee without recommendation. overall, it is a new type of program we have been using in the city. typically, we use redevelopment credits, but this is a new market tax credit. it allows san francisco to use tax credit to attract capital investments in to certain neighborhoods. one reason it was scheduled so quickly is there was a timing issue with potentially lose in other funders for the committee. we scheduled it in committee, but did not yet have a budget analyst report, so we moved it without recommendation pending the report. since that time, you have received the report. it came out yesterday.

supervisor kim made amendments. one of my concerns is the city would be on the hook, that there is indemnity. what risk will we be taking? previously, it would be the redevelopment agency indemnifying a contract. currently, it is the san francisco general fund. after conversations, i have learned the risk is minimal. it had to do with whether our city department heads and the redevelopment agency -- if there is fraudulent activity that happens. for the most part, many of the items that would constitute a recapture -- if we were not in compliance with one or two of the items, we would have time to fix that. because the risk is very low, because the project is positive in terms of community benefit, because we are leveraging $7.60

million in tax credit from the northern community loan fund, $5 million from the property fund, and others, i think this is a good deal for the city. i hope you support it. president chiu: further discussion? supervisor kim: i want to express my support for this project. i am excited we are bringing a jazz center to san francisco. jazz is an american classical form of art. it is good to honor that next to the symphony, the opera, and other arts institutions. i want to thank supervisor nurjarunu -- mirkarimi. these benefits specifically come for benefits in low income communities. we want to make sure our community benefits agreement is targeted for the communities where jazz has historically been a large part of the history and

tradition. i appreciate your work on that. i am excited to see this project open, i believe next year, in the fall. president chiu: is there further discussion? can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, this is adopted as amended. >> item 23 is from the city operations and neighborhood services committee, without recommendation, an ordinance amending the administrative code to prohibit limited services pregnancy centers from making false statements to the public about their services. president chiu: is there anything you want to say about this measure? supervisor cohen: thank you, president. i am still collecting myself over here about item 11. i would like to move for a continuance. president chiu: to what date? supervisor cohen: one week.

president chiu: that would be the 18th -- two weeks, given we are not here next week. supervisor farrell: i would like to be added as a co-sponsor. president chiu: unless there is an objection, this item will be continued to october 18. item 24. >> a resolution responding to the judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations in the civil grand jury report entitled "hiring practices of the city and county of san francisco," urging the acceptance of the findings and recommendations through the department heads. president chiu: any discussion? without objection, same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. >> item 25, responding to the

presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations contained in the report "san francisco's ethics commission -- the sleeping watchdog." supervisor elsbernd: i think i have been informed -- i know i have been informed that there is a mistake in the file in front of us, and the committee disagreed with the recommendation, recommendation four. excuse me. finding four. no? recommendation number four. president chiu: supervisor makes a motion we disagree with that finding, which is my recollection of what happened in committee. supervisor avalos: i will second that motion, and that is the correct representation of what happened in committee. president chiu: the motion has

been made and seconded. without objection, the amendment will be made. on the underlying resolution, as amended -- supervisor elsbernd: just to be consistent, recommendation 7, which the committee agreed to, to maximize transparency and broadcast meetings on sfgov television, i like the previous item, where there was a recommendation to hire a new employee. you put in language that suggested we agree with this legislation, subject to our typical budget process and insuring dollars are available. i would like to see that language year. i do not like to write a blank check. i would suggest we amend the resolution to include language similar to item 24, which says we agree with recommendation no.

-- number seven, subject to the budget process. supervisor campos: something related to this -- i am introducing today an ordinance that would require the ethics commission meetings to be broadcast on -- be broadcast on sfgtv. obviously, whatever is done must be within the confines of the budget. it is my hope and believe this is such a priority that the ethics commission should move forward. my understanding is they are already committed to doing that. i do not know that i object to what supervisor elsbernd is saying, but i do know -- do not know whether the ordinance changes that. supervisor mirkarimi: